A demonstrator holds up a sign outside the Supreme Court on June 30 in Washington D.C. The Court decided to relieve businesses with religious objections of their obligation to pay for women’s contraceptives in the Hobby Lobby case.(Pablo Martinez, AP file)

The stark juxtaposition of the U.S. Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision alongside the Colorado Department of Public Health and Education (CDPHE) report on the plummeting rate of abortion related to unintended teen pregnancy could not be more instructive.

The Hobby Lobby stance, ostensibly based on the scientifically and philosophically thin concept that some forms of contraception are like abortion, ignores the reality we face. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, the CDPHE data clearly show that the most effective strategy is the widespread and easy availability of free or cheap contraception. Fiscally, the return on investment in saved medical costs related to the unintended pregnancies is demonstrable, to say nothing of the averted social catastrophe that teen pregnancy can become.

If the social right really wants to limit abortion, they will need to leave the fantasy world of imaginary abstinence they inhabit and join the real world where decisions and actions have consequences: Limiting contraception causes abortion.

Kent Heyborne, M.D., Denver

This letter was published in the July 14 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Customers walk into a Hobby Lobby store in Oklahoma City in late June. The craft store has been at the center of a debate over the concept of “corporate personhood.” The principle has been lurking in U.S. law for more than a century, and the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, gave it a big boost last week when it ruled that certain businesses — including Hobby Lobby — are entitled to exercise religious rights just as do people. (Sue Ogrocki, The Associated Press)

Corporations are now persons, so their bosses can benefit from the protection of a conservative Supreme Court. One wag suggested that a corporation can now adopt children and get married. Did he mean to imply that they can thus create slave labor? Even more ironic is the fact that the courts have established that corporations cannot be charged with criminal conspiracy — because a person obviously cannot conspire with herself or himself. Thus, the managers of corporations can breathe together in huddles, creating scams against the rest of us human individuals. Is this just, Justice Alito?

Phillip K. Tompkins, Denver

This letter was published in the July 13 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

For big-government-minded liberal secularists — as appears to the be the case with The Denver Post’s editorial board, reacting with its “sky is falling” editorial — the Supreme Court’s rebuke of the Affordable Care Act’s overreach has to be a particularly difficult pill to swallow, a special combination of frustration, disappointment and nausea. For what it’s worth, many like myself know exactly how you are feeling right now. We felt the same way when Barack Obama got elected for a second term.

Basically, the U.S. Supreme Court just decided that employees are not entitled to their own religious beliefs, and they have to submit to corporation owners’ beliefs. Indeed, it was the law of the land in medieval ages; are we really, as a society, so conservative?

The job of Supreme Court justices is to verify that laws are compliant with the Constitution, not their own personal beliefs.

Jerry Borysiewicz, Lakewood

This letter was published in the July 3 edition.

Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, if you believe life begins at the beginning, and you believe life is our most precious possession, then we as a human race should make laws to protect life, not destroy it at its earliest and most vulnerable stage. Only with life do we have the potential for anything. No government should mandate that any entity should be forced to assist anyone with the termination of life; whether it is considered “viable” or not, it is a human life. I speak of those contraceptive methods that terminate a pregnancy, not just prevent it.

John Pickard, Lakewood

This letter was published in the July 3 edition.

Religious liberty is not the “right” to impose one’s religious views on one’s employees. The two are essentially opposites. Shame on Hobby Lobby for bringing this case, and shame on the Supreme Court for this silly decision.

Paul Haynes, Boulder

This letter was published in the July 3 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Letter-writer Gregg Pearson suggests that we should “get over” our disgust at the Supreme Court’s ruling on prayers at city council meetings. He cannot understand those who want the world to go their way, and “the heck with everyone else.” What a beautiful example of the pot calling the kettle black, given the success that religious groups have in doing exactly that in many countries.

Does it hurt to have a 30-second prayer at the beginning of meetings? Of course not, although it probably does no good either. But this is not the point. The point is that this is taking one more brick out of the wall of separation between church and state. Every time such a ruling is made, it encourages those who want prayer at school events, the Ten Commandments in public buildings, and prayer breakfasts for Congress.

This is why we are “disgusted” at the ruling.

W. Nevell Razak, Denver

This letter was published in the May 21 edition.

To letter-writer Gregg Pearson:

1. What kind of prayers should be recited? To which deity? Would you approve Muslim? Pagan?

2. “Get over it” is not an accepted juridicial argument.

3. America has more able-bodied than disabled. Does that mean we should just do away with those costly curb cuts and the disabled should just get over it?

A tenet of democracy is that we make space for minorities. Especially as we all pay taxes. So, yes, give a little. Would it hurt not to have a 30-second prayer session? Is it really going to ruin someone’s day?

I grew up in the U.S. and am Jewish, so I know what it is to be a minority. I now live in Israel, where there is no separation of church and state. Even speaking as one who is now in the majority, take my word for it, folks: You don’t want to go down this road.

Miriam Erez, Southern Arava, Israel

This letter was published in the May 21 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Joan Stallard, right, talks about the issue of the Supreme Court striking down the limit one can donate to political campaigns as Scott Dorn looks on in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday. (Rod Lamkey, Getty Images)

The Supreme Court’s most recent decision on the limits of campaign funding, added to the astonishing Citizens United judgment, gives us an opportunity to formalize our entire political system.

Currently, we are benumbed by intentionally misleading campaign advertising, endless posturing by candidates, preoccupation with elections scheduled for years in advance, paralyzing and endless political bickering over health care, infrastructure, international affairs, the size of the debt and nearly every other issue.

Why don’t we just select the 100 wealthiest Americans to form the Senate and the next 435 richest to comprise the House? They could then name the president and vice president from their moneyed midst.

Everything else in our present system is for sale; maybe we should just acknowledge reality and base everything on money.

Wayne Olson, Denver

This letter was published in the April 5 edition.

OK. Let’s just admit that the United States of America is no longer a republic. Our government is now a commodity to be purchased by those with obscene wealth. Those among us who decry that our leaders want to take us closer to European “socialism” do not seem to be concerned that we are now looking awfully like that corrupt oligarchy that runs Russia. I’m depressed.

Mary Kay Kisseberth, Denver

This letter was published in the April 5 edition.

Outrage over the Supreme Court’s First Amendment-protecting decision on campaign finance limits is quite misplaced. Liberals are screaming that money will now determine elections. As opposed to what? Barack Obama amassed more than $1 billion to get re-elected. Where did that money come from? Mom and Pop? I don’t think so. Both parties have enormous resources, and raise obscene amounts of money from special interests, both liberal and conservative. The court has simply given both sides permission to conduct business as usual, without hypocrisy, and without favor.

Anthony T. Accetta, Denver

This letter was published in the April 5 edition.

My mind is continuously boggled by the logic of the conservatives on the Supreme Court. How can speech be free when it goes to the highest bidder? The First Amendment is sacrosanct specifically because it allows every citizen to have his or her say. It is not for the protection of those who can afford to buy up the most venues, including votes of elected officials. Money is completely eroding our democracy and the convoluted reasoning of the justices is accelerating that process.

I’m sure our forefathers are turning over in their graves watching how their noble words have been terribly twisted and misconstrued by the very people who trumpet their devotion to the Constitution.

Paid-for speech is not free speech, and until someone has the courage to enforce that, the 1 percent will be the governing body.

Dan Eberhart, Denver

This letter was published in the April 5 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Dan Trujillo, left, and Clyde Peck get married as people gather to show support of marriage equality at Washington Square, just outside of the Salt Lake City and County Building in Salt Lake City on Dec. 23. The Supreme Court, on Jan. 6, 2014, put same-sex marriages on hold in Utah, at least while a federal appeals court more fully considers the issue. (Tom Smart, The Deseret News/AP file)

Thank heaven for a U.S. Supreme Court that unanimously recognizes the validity of state law and the consideration that must be given to activist decisions which attempt to overturn it.

Judge Robert Shelby made a mistake in what he did. State rights are paramount in matters such as this, and must be carefully viewed. Thirty-two states have similar laws prohibiting homosexual marriages; Utah is not alone.

If the federal government started violating the 10th Amendment, which grants states the right to make their own laws, it would be a serious problem for our nation. Fortunately, the level-headed Supreme Court justices recognize this.

Jim Green, Heber City, Utah

This letter was published in the Jan. 8 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

The Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act was actually at its core a conservative decision upholding state sovereignty. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for ‘when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States’?” (citing a 1930 Supreme Court decision).

The majority said DOMA violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protection by imposing “restrictions and restraints” on “those persons who are joined in same sex-marriages made lawful by the State.”

Conservative commentators often decry the overreaching of the federal government in state matters. If conservatives were true to their principles supporting states’ rights, they should applaud the Supreme Court for upholding state sovereignty over marriage, which has been a state concern since the days of our founding.

Regarding the Supreme Court’s overturn of DOMA, letter-writer Allen Murphy bemoans the fact that “not everything legal is moral,” and goes on to state that “all sexual activity outside of marriage is objectively sinful.”

Mr. Murphy, there is a difference between sin and immorality. For example, it is a sin to work on the Sabbath, but it is not immoral. It is immoral to kill someone for working on the Sabbath, but it is not a sin, according to the Old Testament (Exodus 35:2).

I for one am glad that I live in a country where our laws are based on the evolving morality of modern humans rather than that of bronze-age tribesmen.

Greg Reeder, Denver

This letter was published in the July 3 edition.

Were three letter-writers, all of whom are medical doctors, serious when they claimed that “a household with two parents may provide a better structure and more stable environment for children,” but that the “sex of those parents is immaterial”? They give no supporting argument for these two statements, one of which apparently is a guess since they use the word “may,” while the other is an apparent fact, since they use the word “immaterial.” Though they may not think so, this leads to a very rational question: What else could their statement about two parents be based on, if not on gender?

Regardless of one’s position on homosexuality, haven’t 6,000 years of history, literature and art and the analysis of those fields shown the unique importance of a mother on the children? And hasn’t the last several decades of scientific research shown the unique influence of a father, especially when the father is absent for the young male child, and the ensuing psychological and social problems?

It is rather amusing to watch the herd mentality that has developed around same-sex marriage. Ruth Marcus writes of “Congress’ hateful moral judgment against it” (same-sex marriage). But wasn’t it Democratic darling Bill Clinton who signed DOMA into law? Until his views “evolved” in May 2012, wasn’t President Obama opposed to same-sex marriage?

At a Cabinet meeting, Harry Truman called for a vote. His entire Cabinet voted, “Nay.” The president said, “Aye,” followed by, “The ayes have it.”

At the end of his worst opera, Verdi saw the madhouse of applause nearly drown out his orchestra, but he looked through the rows of people where sat Rossini, his contemporary composer, silent in his stall. One wise man’s verdict outweighs all the fools.

I find it strange that the Archdiocese of Denver would base its opposition to gay marriage by urging all elected officials “to uphold and support our state constitution.” What about our U.S. Constitution, which the Supreme Court has now — significantly, if not broadly — interpreted on this issue? Will they continue to urge support for the state constitution when Amendment 43 is repealed and gay marriage is endorsed, as it surely will be with the changing attitudes of Coloradans?

Will Burt, Lakewood

This letter was published in the July 3 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Field Director Charles White of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People speaks at a podium outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on June 25 in Washington, D.C. The court ruled that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which aimed at protecting minority voters, is unconstitutional. (Win McNamee, Getty Images)

Today I am ashamed of my country. I am ashamed that four white men and — hold your breath — one black man undid one of the greatest acts of Congress in our history: the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These five men fail to understand history and the blood of those who have gone before who died for justice and fairness in a society that even today is increasingly deaf to the voices of the poor, the unemployed and the disenfranchised.

Perhaps these five men and those who support their actions never heard of Emmett Till or Medgar Evers. Perhaps they did not see the long lines of black men and women waiting to vote last November as restrictive voting hour laws and phony voter fraud ID laws made voting harder for those with the least power. Or could it be that declaring victory over the past is a way to erase history and blind oneself from the truth?

In a society less upwardly mobile than in 1965 when the Voting Rights Act became law, it is shocking that corporatists like U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, John Roberts and Samuel Alito continue their assault on the open society necessary for democracy. It will take a new civil rights movement to fashion fairness and access and undo the damage these men have brought us.

Bill J. Fyfe, Denver

This letter was published in the June 27 edition.

Funny how changing times justify boys in girls’ restrooms, gay marriage (which I support), amnesty for illegals, and so many other liberal causes, but questioning an outmoded voting law or the need for race-based preferences is called an outrage. Laws protecting minorities were necessary and proper, once. They are no longer necessary or proper. All the bleating about continued racism in America is knee-jerk pap, which insults pioneers of all races who worked so hard and sacrificed so much to make America one of the least racist nations on the planet. Let us celebrate our progress, not continue to denigrate our past and hold ourselves to standards which simply no longer apply. And, no, we’re not perfect; but the Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act has nothing to do with social mores, just whether we discriminate in voting. And, please, stop carping on Republicans: Democrats are using this antiquated law for political, not social reasons. Let’s move on, shall we?

Anthony T. Accetta, Denver

This letter was published in the June 27 edition.

With Tuesday’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision, which essentially overturned Section 4 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, red-state Republicans, having heretofore focused their attention on the passage of endless measures to repeal or obstruct implementation of the Affordable Care Act, may now demonstrate that they are also capable of creating a vast array of innovative voter suppression measures, and thereby shed their reputation of being merely “one-trick elephants.”

Frank Tapy, Denver

This letter was published in the June 27 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

I would like to respond to the letter written by Christopher Juniper of Denver about the Eminent Domain Ruling not creating new law in the letter section of the Denver Post, Saturday July 28, 2007

While the “Kelo” decision did not create new law, it did uphold new law. It took activists judges of the same ilk and philosophy as that of the Judges on the court at the time of the original decision that did create new law. That decision, which allowed local governments to take private property and give it to another developer (General Motors) was reassessed by the Michigan Supreme Court (One of the high Courts that allowed this travesty in the first place) during the “Kelo” decision and deemed it a mistake! Read more…

In the 2 1/2 hours Dick Cheney reigned as king he could have: started a preemptive war, re-written the Constitution, appointed no-nothings to the Supreme Court, called up all the national guards and reservists, handed the military-industrial complex and big oil 100 billion or so, wiped out years of conservation legislation, made the vice-president a fourth branch of government, and told the Congress to buzz out of his business. Since he had already accomplished all of these acts he probably went hunting.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.